karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Cabal
Re: Just Die
No, the RIAA is trying to say that by DOING it, he committed a crime. THERE IS NO CRIME IF NO-ONE DOWNLOADS IT. That is what the EFF is saying.
The RIAA DIDN'T download any songs from him, they just got a list of songs. He OWNED the SONGS. If the RIAA had gotten PROOF that other people were downloading, then they would have a case. As it is, they are attempting to argue the mere FACT that he ripped the songs to his hard drive, he committed a crime. No proof of downloads, no foul. Simple as that.
--
Relgion and Politics don't mix! I have firsthand knowledge of what happens when ANY religion mixes with ANY politics. |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| said by karlmarx  :The RIAA DIDN'T download any songs from him, they just got a list of songs. Well....I agree with the EFF's point that the act of placing the ripped MP3s into a "shared folder" isn't infringement in any way. My rationale is that I could have a "shared folder" on my local home network and not have it be infringement.
The difference here is that I think what they're saying is he also was sharing that folder on some P2P app. I think that's a different story. That's probably enough to claim intent to distribute, which is a problem. Somehow they got a list of what he was sharing. So either it was available publically or they hacked his PC or network.
said by karlmarx :He OWNED the SONGS. Actually no he doesn't. You never do. He owns the physical media (the CD), not the content on it. Thus you don't have rights to distribute the tunes, which really is in my view the RIAA's one and only valid argument.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
edit:
January 14th, @12:05AM
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :No, the RIAA is trying to say that by DOING it, he committed a crime. THERE IS NO CRIME IF NO-ONE DOWNLOADS IT. That is what the EFF is saying. The RIAA DIDN'T download any songs from him, they just got a list of songs. He OWNED the SONGS. If the RIAA had gotten PROOF that other people were downloading, then they would have a case. As it is, they are attempting to argue the mere FACT that he ripped the songs to his hard drive, he committed a crime. No proof of downloads, no foul. Simple as that. All they gotta do is show INTENT. Same argument used many times in court.. "assault with INTENT to kill". "Possession with INTENT to distribute". The argument would be something like "John Doe had 200gb's of music on his PC in a SHARED folder and running some P2P software". Don't think it would be too hard to provde intent but I hope he gets some judge with a pair that tells the RIAA to FO.. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind :The difference here is that I think what they're saying is he also was sharing that folder on some P2P app. I think that's a different story. That's probably enough to claim intent to distribute, which is a problem. Somehow they got a list of what he was sharing. So either it was available publically or they hacked his PC or network. Ah. So if I walk around town with a pistol openly carried on my hip, you know that I have the intent to use it on somebody. That is actually legal, under state law in California; open carry. Might be different under local laws, but that is the state law.
"Intent" is damned hard to prove, absent an overt act.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tc1uscg
said by tc1uscg :All they gotta do is show INTENT. Same argument used many times in court.. "assault with INTENT to kill". "Possession with INTENT to distribute". In conjunction with an overt act, you can usually prove intent. In the absence of an overt act, you can't prove intent.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to tc1uscg
Harder than you think.
In criminal trials, proving intent is important because the litmus test is "beyond reasonable doubt". If you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, no crime has been committed. That was the problem with OJ's first trial - the prosecution was such a mess tha they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, intent is not required. The plaintiff piles up their evidence, the defendant piles up THEIR evidence, and the judge/jury sees who has more. Beyond reasonable doubt is not required, nor is intent; the burden of proof is instead 'preponderance of evidence'. |
|
